CIA Director’s affair caught by FBI e-mail monitoring

The extramarital affair between CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell was exposed as the result of FBI e-mail monitoring of Broadwell after she sent "threatening and harassing" messages to another woman. The Washington Post reports that the months-long investigation's discovery of explicit, sexually charged emails from Petraeus' personal e-mail account to Broadwell led directly to Petraeus' resignation.

The unnamed woman, which the Washington Post says did not work at the CIA and was not Petraeus' wife, had asked the FBI to look into the threatening e-mails from Broadwell. FBI investigators then used the bureau's electronic monitoring capability, (as described in depth in Ars' analysis of the FBI's electronic monitoring of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan), to intercept emails to and from Broadwell's account.

During the course of the investigation, federal agents monitoring Broadwell's e-mails found messages coming from Petraeus' personal Gmail account, and were concerned that his account had been hacked, "leading to concerns about potential national security breaches," according to officials interviewed by the Post. But after collecting more evidence, the FBI realized it had uncovered an affair between Petraeus and Broadwell. The agency later decided that Broadwell's e-mails to the unnamed woman were "'threatening and harassing' but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges."

Anyone else a little concerned that the FBI's search started with a random, unrelated person and ended up snooping emails of Patreaus? I mean, what are the odds that an investigation of a complaint about email harassment by some currently-unnamed-woman triggers and FBI investigation into another woman and then have that investigation lead to an ousting of a sitting CIA director?

Why is the FBI even involved in this case to begin with?

You can't make that shit up....

Exactly my thoughts, waiting for someone to jump on that, I guess the "there COULD have been a warrant, right?" poster above is on the same page too. What are the chances of this being as random as they say it is? Since when does the FBI police nasty catfight emails from authors? And another thing that bugs me..are you telling me the leader of one of the most secretive goverment agencies in the world used his real name on this gmail account used to send emails to the woman he was having an affair with?! Really? Should step down for that alone! Could have been tracked by IP i guess but still, used car salesmen are sneakier than that.

Did either of you RTFA? It explains clearly the sequence of events. Woman reports crazy woman threatening her through emails. FBI investigates possible 'cybercrime' (I have that word). FBI find emails from Petraeus' Gmail to alleged crazy woman. FBI broadens investigation to see if someone has hacked Petraeus's Gmail account, out of "concerns about potential national security breaches." When you're Director of the CIA, you don't get too much leeway when it comes to those pesky national security breaches. Luckily, they found nothing but a sordid affair.

So you have (from the WaPo article)1) A person who, on a professional level, has a high degree of access to a CIA officer, including numerous private meetings in his office, accompanying him on trips, etc.2) That person becomes engaged in an illicit affair with said officer3) That person then begins to display unstable behavior, sending threatening e-mails to people for real or imagined transgressions.4) The CIA officer appears to be unable to contain the situation to the point that the victim of the harassment reports it to the FBI.

All of this, plus that he submitted his resignation over it. He could have fought it, continued to hide it, protested the punishment (if any), and so forth.

With someone of his rank and history, damage to his family as a result of a (very) public discussion of his affair would be an excellent reason to be blackmailed. That is what blackmail is all about.

Let's face it, if there was no harm to him then he could have come out with the truth long before the FBI were involved. Then everything discovered was already disclosed. It's that non-disclosure part that is an issue, and it's more of an issue the higher the position is.

He had been scheduled to appear before congressional intelligence committees on Thursday to testify on what the CIA knew, and what it told the White House, before, during and after the attacks that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi on Sept. 11. His former deputy, Michael Morell, will now have to answer lawmakers' questions about the Islamist militant attack on a U.S. Consulate and CIA base in Libya.

The plot thickens? Are we going to see a public apology and wife's acceptance of such soon, banking on the goodwill of a reformed sinner (in something of the same manner as banking on being an reformed alcoholic)?

It's likely a sacking affair because it would, once discovered, trigger some sort of re-appraisal of one's security clearance at the very least. The CIA's director shouldn't be going through that.

Why would this trigger a loss of security clearance? Is there some documentation you can point to?

Unlikely, as such documentation is often classified. I have never held an American clearance, but I have held one in my own nation's army, and I can tell you that most areas of an individual's life comes under scrutiny. They check your financial status and criminal record, interview former employers and colleagues, and depending on the level of the clearance may also subject you to a polygraph test.

In and of itself, extra-marital activity is hardly seen as a security problem, but as other's have already commented, it's the fact that an undisclosed affair can be used as leverage or blackmail material, in the same way as debt could compromise an otherwise honest person's integrity, that poses a problem.

Ultimately, the reason the former general chose to resign is more likely political. Director of the CIA is very much a political position and I imagine the damage to his image would make his job quite difficult. I wouldn't worry too much about him though, I'm sure the former director of the CIA and former general in the US armed forces can find employment ;-)

Would this be the case for other people apart from Perseus? It didn't seem to stop Clinton, just distract him for a while.

Because having an affair, or more correctly failing to disclose the fact can be reason enough to revoke a security clearance, and without said clearance he can't be the head of the CIA. Second, he resigned, he was not fired. He himself though that his actions were unbecoming for a person in his position

See,. now you think the head of an international spy organization would have the good sense to use PGP for sensitive e-mail such as... I dunno, an affair?

It's simple to implement, and GMAIL SUPPORTS IT!

Caught because of his own inability to use the intelligence and counter-intelligence tools available to him on a daily basis. Clearly not fit to be the head of a covert operations intelligence agency by any means.

Would this be the case for other people apart from Perseus? It didn't seem to stop Clinton, just distract him for a while.

Because having an affair, or more correctly failing to disclose the fact can be reason enough to revoke a security clearance, and without said clearance he can't be the head of the CIA. Second, he resigned, he was not fired. He himself though that his actions were unbecoming for a person in his position

Anyone else a little concerned that the FBI's search started with a random, unrelated person and ended up snooping emails of Patreaus?

Actually, my reaction is a bit of relief that those doing all this surveillance are not immune to its effects themselves, even if it is a result of inter-agency rivalry rather than forthright adherence to standards.

Means there is more likelihood that even those in power will agree on its undesirability.

See,. now you think the head of an international spy organization would have the good sense to use PGP for sensitive e-mail such as... I dunno, an affair?

It's simple to implement, and GMAIL SUPPORTS IT!

Caught because of his own inability to use the intelligence and counter-intelligence tools available to him on a daily basis. Clearly not fit to be the head of a covert operations intelligence agency by any means.

Rule one of covert operations, it's only illegal if you get caught.

Takes two to tango, sadly. And even in the military there are dedicated comms personnel that deal with those kinds of things...

Would this be the case for other people apart from Perseus? It didn't seem to stop Clinton, just distract him for a while.

It is an action unbecoming of an officer! He is our highest officer in many years. If he can get away with it, then all dishonorably discharged in the past over having affairs should be pardoned.

If Petraeus can get away with it then it further lowers the standards and conduct of all our officers. Just cut it down another notch! Their used to be a clause about being a gentleman to serve as an officer of our armed forces!

That is General Petraeus (Ret)While it is normal for Generals to expect reactivation after retirement, I somehow doubt that this general can expect to return to active service anytime soon

I'd be surprised if he's not already back in active service. Wait - are we talking about the same thing?

PS: I just realized what a great double pun "sex is a sacking affair" is. Good one, redtomato.

The agency later decided that Broadwell's e-mails to the unnamed woman were, "'threatening and harassing' but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges."

Pretty sure if the average American were reported for sending a "threatening and harassing email" and it came to the attention of the FBI/Justice Dept. said person would be facing a 16-Ton Weight of criminal charges.

The agency later decided that Broadwell's e-mails to the unnamed woman were, "'threatening and harassing' but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges."

Pretty sure if the average American were reported for sending a "threatening and harassing email" and it came to the attention of the FBI/Justice Dept. said person would be facing a 16-Ton Weight of criminal charges.

Probably not. The FBI investigates this sort of thing every day. I imagine most people cut it out the second somebody with an FBI badge has a little talk with them about how their emails could be considered a crime.

Anyone else a little concerned that the FBI's search started with a random, unrelated person and ended up snooping emails of Patreaus? I mean, what are the odds that an investigation of a complaint about email harassment by some currently-unnamed-woman triggers and FBI investigation into another woman and then have that investigation lead to an ousting of a sitting CIA director?

Why is the FBI even involved in this case to begin with?

You can't make that shit up....

Exactly my thoughts, waiting for someone to jump on that, I guess the "there COULD have been a warrant, right?" poster above is on the same page too. What are the chances of this being as random as they say it is? Since when does the FBI police nasty catfight emails from authors? And another thing that bugs me..are you telling me the leader of one of the most secretive goverment agencies in the world used his real name on this gmail account used to send emails to the woman he was having an affair with?! Really? Should step down for that alone! Could have been tracked by IP i guess but still, used car salesmen are sneakier than that.

Did either of you RTFA? It explains clearly the sequence of events. Woman reports crazy woman threatening her through emails. FBI investigates possible 'cybercrime' (I have that word). FBI find emails from Petraeus' Gmail to alleged crazy woman. FBI broadens investigation to see if someone has hacked Petraeus's Gmail account, out of "concerns about potential national security breaches." When you're Director of the CIA, you don't get too much leeway when it comes to those pesky national security breaches. Luckily, they found nothing but a sordid affair.

What's more the FBI (as an organization) didn't out Petraeus directly. It was an anonymous "whistle-blower" within the FBI who contacted the House Majority Leader with the information, who requested an investigation into the matter.

The FBI did exactly what they were supposed to do. If there is a link between a seemingly crazy person who is sending threatening emails and the director of the CIA, it is definitely grounds for investigation.

The rest was likely politically motivated, but it would be very difficult to stop that kind of information from spreading (anyone with knowledge of the investigation, which could involve an IT analyst could have leaked the information).

I'm more inclined like the French with having a mistress on the side is ok.

Or more that it is a private matter between the adults involved, not one of them and his/her employer (never mind the public).

Then again the whole idea of marriage seems to be a outdated notion from the time when "blood" relation could only really be settled via indirect means (virginity on the side of one party until the first night after social/cultural union rites).

A whole lot of social/cultural/religious rules and rites boils down to maintaining patriarchal inheritance lines from the days when deities came by the dozen.

Why does everyone mention only Newt? Does anyone remember Bill Clinton? He had an affair IN office, the oval office even! lied about it, got impeached and STILL finished his term.

Maybe because Clinton never spent millions of govt money investigating somebody for cheating on their wife, unlike Newt.

Both are cheaters, Newt is also a hypocrite.

No, Clinton spent millions in government money investigating him on ethics charges. You investigate 'em based on what might stick. Clinton lied about this; Newt lied about that. But Newt's the hypocrite.. OK.

I mean, your guy, FDR, is freakin' paralyzed from the waist down, and is still able to stick it in a girl that's not his wife. JFK, Churchill; most of the good politicians; apparently have big brass ones the size of cue balls. Must be a prerequisite.

I'd say Reagan might be an exception to that, but he had the sense to dump the bitch early on. And probably the sense not to slip it to anyone crazier than he was.

I wasn't sure what kind of man Newt was until I saw his daughters campaigning for him this summer. Let me tell you, they love the shit out their daddy. Blah blah blah policy; but when a man's grown daughter still loves him like that, after she's had her own children, he's a good man. A bad man can't hide from his own daughter. Those two 40ish women still think their daddy hung the moon.Two of them, is icing on the cake.

Then his ex comes on, run him down and torpedo his nomination. And I'm thinking what a bitch; you make my ex look like Mother Teresa. I see why he scraped her off. Heh, he offers not to toss her out immediately on her ass, and she turns that around into him wanting an open marriage. Classic.

Let me ask you this: What might have happened, had some individual taken control of the Republican party, and then seized the immigration issue with a radical populist departure from either party's line? Something like, everybody gets a green card; everybody pays taxes. No more illegals; or at least far less. Not a citizen; you still gotta apply like everybody else. But you can be here and work. Minimum wage laws and all that apply. What kind of crazy world would that be, one where America, the land of the free, basically takes all the immigrants that want to come? Crazy talk, eh? Such a guy would have had to form a coalition with moderate Democrats, thus marginalizing both the far left, and more importantly; the far right.

Such a government would then, inevitably, begin to once again creak forward, dealing with issues equitable to a large portion of the populace. Not this 51% loves it; 49% hates it down to it's birth certificate shit. Newt was old, tired and fat, with not much to lose for trying. He was going for Mount Rushmore. And he had a chance.

But. Nope. Not to be. I knew that Romney was pre-ordained to lose to Obama when they dug up Cain's women. I must admit I had fallen for a portion of the charade up to that point. But so had Newt. They ran him out of that corrupt town on a rail after the Republicans were done with him, and he really thought he had a chance to ride back in.

Anyone else a little concerned that the FBI's search started with a random, unrelated person and ended up snooping emails of Patreaus? I mean, what are the odds that an investigation of a complaint about email harassment by some currently-unnamed-woman triggers and FBI investigation into another woman and then have that investigation lead to an ousting of a sitting CIA director?

Why is the FBI even involved in this case to begin with?

You can't make that shit up....

Did you not know anything about the story? Brodwell was emailing the friend of the Petraeus family with really nasty emails and that friend went to the FBI with it. They started looking and found out the email was coming from Brodwell. Inside the email were emails from Petraeus' personal Gmail account and inside that account they found the emails between David P. and Brodwell. They went to the President with that in hand. More interesting is that they found all of this weeks ago. So why was this held out of the public till after the election? Media manipulation?